1983 (9) TMI 278 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim under Rule 12A for duty of excise on blended tea exported out of India; Denial of principles of natural justice by Collector (Appeals) for not granting a personal hearing; Disagreement on whether the covering letter requesting a personal hearing should be considered part of the appeal.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal filed by Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. against the rejection of their refund claim under Rule 12A for duty of excise on blended tea exported out of India. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim, prompting the appellant to file an appeal with the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred under Section 35 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, without considering the merits of the case or granting a personal hearing to the appellant.

Shri S.C. Mukhopadhyay, representing the appellant, argued that the denial of a personal hearing by the Collector (Appeals) amounted to a violation of natural justice. He contended that the appeal was not time-barred, as the delay could have been condoned, and emphasized that the appellant had explicitly requested a personal hearing in the covering letter accompanying the appeal. This request, according to Mukhopadhyay, should be considered part of the appeal, and the lack of a hearing would result in irreparable harm to the appellant.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative argued that there was no explicit request for a hearing in the grounds of appeal and questioned the evidentiary value of the covering letter mentioned by the appellant's representative. However, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that the covering letter, which specifically requested a personal hearing, should be considered an integral part of the appeal. The Tribunal held that the denial of a hearing amounted to a denial of natural justice, emphasizing that even in the absence of an explicit request, the Collector (Appeals) should have exercised discretion judiciously.

In light of the denial of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the appeal to the Collector (Appeals) for a fresh consideration, directing a decision in accordance with the law. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, highlighting the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.